Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-06-13

1 ,
/ prejudice to appellant. A careful
examination fails 10 Justify q reversal of
the judgment, and it is affirmed.
Loney SancerSon VS.. the State, from
McLennan county; opinion by Hurt, j.
a conviction for unlawfully carrying
| pistol, but the evidence shows that appel
liant took the pistol in his hand for few
minutes to shoot rabbit and handed it
} back to witness. The evidence does not
support the conviction. Reversed and
remanded.
Homer Nee VS.. State, from Fannin
county; opinion by Hurt, J. There are
four convictions of forgery against appel
liant. Tha indictment charges that the
instrument forged purported to be the
acts of two trustees of Pleasant Grove
'free" school community No. So. The
instrument is signed as trustees of school
community, ETC., leaving out "free."
This is relied on as variance, but in the
body Of the forged instrument the words
Stree school" occur, and the variance
vanishes after considering the other
| grounds and see no reasons for reversing
the judgment. 1t is affirmed as to the
four cases.
w. W. Chester VS.. State, from Came
ron county; opinioR by White, ?. j. The
appellant was convicted upon an Indict-
ment containing q count of forgery, and
one of uttering the forged instrument.
The objections to the two counts are not
we'll taken, and besides it mace no differ
ence, IS nolle pros was entered as to
the second count. But it was error to
allow witness to testify as to the con-
! tents Of telegram sent by witness, as
reason for the reproduction of the tele-
grams is not shown. Again it was
error to allow the introduction of tele-
grams Ia answer to those sent by
witness as it was the veriest hearsay.
here IS no rule Of law to allow their
| introduction. The criminal is not con-
| fronted with witnesses if this were allow
ed nor are they under oath. 1t was pat
ent error to admit such evidence. The
expert testimony was admissible, but it
was error to allow the Tom Peters to 60
into the hands of the jury to compare
with the forged instrument. The other
errors assigned are immGte-isl. Reversed
and remanded.
NJ A Tucker VS.. the State, from Falls
county; opinion by Wilson, J. There
are two counts in the indictment in this
case o. For stealing yearling. a.
For receiving ayearling knowingly stolen.
| The conviction was on the last count. 1t
was not error to allow the witness Thed-
| ford TO testify as to 9 conversation with
one Noon Tucker, who stole the yearling,
! because it bore on the issue to establish
the charge against appellant, while it
would have been proper for the court
to have instructed the jury in
regard to first count as determining the
guilt of Noon Tucker, but not as proof
of appellant knowingly receiving it. Yet
| this was not called to the attention of the
court at the tine of the trial. There are
! several exceptions to the charge, but
while it is vOluminous, perhaps, and not
correctly arranged, viewed as q whole, I'VE
| find no material error. While the evil
dence is in the main circumstantial, yet
it is sufficient to support the judgment,
and it is affirmed.
Rufus Carter VS.. State, froE: Washing
ton county; opinion by Wilson, j This
is conviction for stealing q horse, on
the night Of January 10, 1887, in Burleson
| county, and it was error to allow two
witnesses to testify that appellant wss in
Brennan on the night of January 81,
! 1887, O,) because 1t was irrele-
want; o. because it was to the
prejudice Of appellant, There is
no reason for its introduction, and prob
ably caused the jury to assess the maxi
mum punishment for the offsnse. 1t was
error to allow testimony TO the effect that
appellant would not tell his name after
| he was arrested. In proving the theft of
another horse at the same time the court
ought to have charged the jury that it
was merely to establish identity in devel-
oping the res gestR. For the errors
+bo nd -
Edward Jones VS.. State, from Lamar
county; opinion by Wilson, j. This is
a conviction of incest. 1t was not error
to refuse to charge as to circumstantial
evidence, as the evidence was direct and
positive. It was not error to refuse mo-
| ton for new trial based on the grounds
that his daughter WAS tried with him at
first and could not testify in his behalf,
and that she is now acquitted and her
testimony was material to him. This
testimony was suspicious and would
stand alone, and the rule is to deny the
new trial when this is the case. Jldg-
ment affirmed.
J. G. Ford VS.. State, from Bosque
county; opinion by Hurt, j. This is q
conviction for keeping q gambling table.
The court instructed 10 assess the punish
ment, if guilty, at not less than S25, nor
more than 500. This penalty is not cor
rect. The act of March 10, 1885, is IN
constitutional, but it does not affect the
validity of Art. 35S, P. c., under which
the cause should have been tried. Re-
versed and remanded.
j. G. Colchell VS.. State of Texas. from
Bosque county; opinion by White,
2. j. This is conviction for
betting at dice. The indictment was
brought under article 364, Penal Code,
which provides for no conviction
where the game occurs st private resi-
dence, and it is rule of law that an in
dictment under statue having en- excep-
ton from its operation in the enacting
clause must negative the exceptions. Be
cause the indictment does not negative
the exception the judgment is reversed
and the cause dismissed.
In Michigan private marks on animals